Jump to content

Anyone tasted this nugget yet?


Keith

Recommended Posts

I've obviously stated my opinion in that thread, but it's not the first time the issue has come up. IMO, those who view this as a rule change were just hoping before that nobody would notice their cages were illegal and make them change it. Even though it could have been more succinctly stated in black-and-white, the way the rule was previously written was pretty clear. When it said one end "shall" start here and the other end "shall" end there, it's was pretty obvious that you could not have a bar in the middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a dog in this fight:

 

http://rides.webshots.com/photo/2648860460042620437QuCwTv

 

But I am not quite understanding the structural difference between the intent of the rule (the design above) versus the inverse, e.g. one horizontal bar with two diagonals welded to it (in a diagonal).

 

I am just wondering what has been made safer with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My bar is like yours, but consider the cars that have bends in the the harness bar to set the seat back farther? How would you square that with the interpretation that the diagonal can intersect the horizontal bar? Or a rollcage where the harness bar ends are slightly offset to adjust the height of the seatbelt mount on the driver's side? I think it makes sense to require a one-piece diagonal.

 

There was a thread last year in the AI forum on this topic that was roundly debated, and JWL eventually noted that he would advise building the rollcage with a single, continuous diagonal brace, but he also noted that it would be clarified in the future and that pre-existing cars with logbooks would not be made illegal. I guess this new language is the result of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the big thing to realize here is what was a required bar before this "clarification". if i remember correctly, only the diagonal was the required bar and therefore should be one single bar.

that being said, if you have a situation where the harness / cross bar needs to be bent, then the diagonal must be one single bar. there is a significant structural difference from the harness bar being straight and one piece and the the diagonal being 2 piece vs the harness bar being bent and the diagonal being 2 piece (not sure how this would happen).

 

i also understand why one would made the harness bar the one piece bar over the diagonal - your more likely to be hit in the side than the roof.

 

i wouldnt sweat this much as long as both bars are straight and are fabricated/welded well. i wouldnt build one like this today, but i wouldnt cut one up thats already done.

i also dont see a blanket grandfather clause, but i do see NASA allowing a case by case approval w/ this issue. my car has passed National Tech 2 times now. i'm not worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.

Dont worry, those who have what the have before this rule with a log book are good to go.

Its really what we look at going forward to doing, not backwards.

Tony Guaglione

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...